The language of "Qualified" and its weakness as a legal terminology.


VIP Member
Dec 7, 2014
Reaction score
Ever seen the Advertisement pertaining to the practice of "Racial Steering" against Blacks ?

"You Want it, You can Afford it, You'll never see it?"

With Asperger Syndrome its..
"You Want it, You're Qualified, You'll never have it."

The Americans with Disabilities Act has "undue hardship" and "Unreasonable Accommodation" and "Qualified" as its terminology, with no legal definitions given.

Always remember, the law speaks only legalese, it sounds like English, but the law doesn't speak English...
It speaks legalese, per say.

That means that just because the dictionary has a definition, doesn't mean that the government recognizes it as such, in its policies.

The problem with the Terminology "Qualified".. is that it is ambiguous.
Just what is qualified ?

That means that without a legal standard of "Qualified", anything whatsoever can be used to say that I am not qualified and it is impossible for me to prove in court that I am.

My degree in Business Management, and in Real Estate doesn't legally mean that I am qualified in terms of gaining employment.

My Asperger Syndrome, makes me not qualified, because there is no standard as being "Qualified", nor is there a legal limitation of the definition of "Qualified", to meaning "having the necessary training".

In English, we associate "qualified" with "having the training and education that is necessary to perform the responsibilities listed on a job description"

The LAW however, has no such definition of the word.

Qualified means absolutely nothing to the government unless the government regulates who can practice a discipline, and who can't.

There is no law that says that I need a degree to be CEO, and so therefore I do not need a degree to be in business whatsoever.

And therefore the Government doesn't protect me, or most people in America with the word "Qualified".

Now for "Undue Hardship"..

Anything whatsoever is "Undue Hardship" depending on your personality.
The more selfish and greedy you are as a human being, the less it takes for it be considered by YOU.. as "Undue Hardship".
Business owners are in the business of one thing, making a profit for themselves.

So therefore that is how greedy they are, because they have to be, and that is the qualities of a successful business person.

And that spills over onto how disabled people are treated by business owners, whether or not it is based on fact.

In terms of the Business owner, its a question of personality.
The law should be based on fact.

Unless the government is a pawn of business owners, the government should have a legal definition of, and a higher standard for just what is LEGALLY "undue hardship"...

Or the government should remove it from its terminology all together.

The same thing with "Unreasonable Accommodation".. again..
The greedier and more selfish you are, the less it takes for you call something "Unreasonable Accommodation".

And just what is either reasonable, or unreasonable ?

To some people its unreasonable to have a speed limit sign, or a law against drunk driving.

Its ambiguous, and conspicuously left open to personal interpretation.

That's the problem with the terminology in the USA regarding the protection against Discrimination...
Its a copout moral objection to discrimination, and not a law against it.

There is a difference between what it was designed to do and what it CAN do, and DOES do.

A Sukhoi was designed to take on and defeat an F22 raptor, doesn't mean it CAN, because it damn sure wouldn't.

Well the ADA was designed to outlaw discrimination against disabled people, but that isn't what it does.

So what we need to do is make to so that it does.

What it was designed to do, is the job of designers.
What it CAN do, is the job of users.

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List